Cyprus-Forum.com

[CopperLine]

Albanians in Kosovo do have some basis for asking for self-determination since they are the majority of Kossovo for several centuries. Still, their case is not obvious, which is why some countries recognize Kosovo and some don't, and the case is now in the ICJ to resolve that question, since both sides believe that they have chances in winning the case in the ICJ.

Piratis
Unlike the rest of the world you seem to think that self-determination os a claim that can only be made by an ethnic majority. Wrong. The right to self-determination as embodied in international law is (perhaps, frustratingly) vague. There is no definitive reference to numbers, to proportions, to minorities or majorities. You might think it should only apply to majorities but that's your problem. Are you really meaning what you say about self-determination and majorities ? The Armenians before and after the 1915 genocide were a minority in Ottoman Turkey and, by your reasoning, they would not have the right to self-determination because they were not a majority. The Kurds are a minority in Turkey. By your reasoning - right of self-determination for majorities and not minorities - Turkey is quite right in suppressing and denying Kurdish self-determination. (Of course Armenians and Kurds and Albanians and Kosovans and Serbs and Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots are very different with different histories but isn't it curious that the issue of minority/majority status means that we can compare different cases and test them in law ?)

Second, Kosovo appeals for self-determination is not centuries old, it is actually rather recent, albeit with some nineteenth century traces.

Third, your final sentence suggest again that you don't actually know the basis of the ICJ case (and/or didn't read my first post on this thread). The request for an ICJ advisory opinion did not come from 'both sides' and is being heard irrespective of the 'both sides believ[ing] that they have a chance of winning.' First the court is giving an opinion not a judgment. Second, therefore, it is not a question of anyone 'winning'. Third, the request to the ICJ to consider the question came from Ban Ki-Moon not from either Serbia or Kosovo, and therefore neither S. nor K submitted the question for testing, judging, arbitration or opinion.

(More to the point this thread started with a question about why TCs didn't 'pursue' the ICJ. My response, which you Piratis have hijacked and distorted, was to explain why TCs couldn't do so. For some unfathomable reason Piratis keeps jumping up and down saying that Kosovo is irrelevant to TRNC. He protesteth too much. As I read it Piratis' basic reaction to the thread question "T/C why have they not pursude the ICJ" is because he, Piratis, doesn't want them to, that they have no substantive grounds to do so. My response is, whether or not TCs have some substantive grounds, they neither have standing or legal personality to do so and therefore cannot submit to the ICJ. Boring I know, but no less true for that).

[Piratis]

Hear, hear.

That's a typical c44 junk response we don't use here.

You're expected to add/expand/analyze/criticize, etc, or say nothing.

CopperLine has a clear unemotional grip on the presentation of his case. I could not possibly presume to add to what he has to say, but can only agree with its sentiments.

Malatya is the name the Turks gave to the exclusively Greek Cypriot village called Παλαιόσοφος (Paleosofos). Do you live in an illegally acquired Greek Cypriot property vaughanwilliams?

[Piratis]

Both the Armenians and the Kurds are the majority over specific territories and they have been so for 1000s of years.



It is over this territory that the Kurds want their independent state. Not over other territories of Turkey (e.g. Ankara) where the Kurds are a minority.

The Albanians in Kosovo have been the majority of that territory for some centuries.



The Turks in Cyprus have never been the majority over any part of Cyprus.



You claim that the self-determination or independence of a territory is irrelevant to the majority of that territory. Really?

So do you claim that if Kosovo only had 18% Albanians and 82% Serbians, and only the Albanians supported a separate Kosovo state, that such demand would have any legitimacy? You must be kidding, right? It is the fact that the majority of people of Kosovo (Albanians) want a separate state which gives to them a basis to demand self-determination and independence. On what basis do the Turks demand a separate Turkish state in north Cyprus? On the basis that Turkish troops occupy north Cyprus and prevent Greek Cypriots (the majority of the population) to live in their own homes?

Second, Kosovo appeals for self-determination is not centuries old, it is actually rather recent, albeit with some nineteenth century traces.

I never claimed that "Kosovo appeals for self-determination are centuries old". What is centuries old is the Albanian majority in Kosovo.

Third, your final sentence suggest again that you don't actually know the basis of the ICJ case (and/or didn't read my first post on this thread). The request for an ICJ advisory opinion did not come from 'both sides' and is being heard irrespective of the 'both sides believ[ing] that they have a chance of winning.' First the court is giving an opinion not a judgment. Second, therefore, it is not a question of anyone 'winning'. Third, the request to the ICJ to consider the question came from Ban Ki-Moon not from either Serbia or Kosovo, and therefore neither S. nor K submitted the question for testing, judging, arbitration or opinion.

The UN has already declared the "trnc" as "legally invalid" with a resolution. The case in Cyprus (invasion - ethnic cleansing) was so clear that the UN didn't need any advisory opinion to understand what is obvious and what everybody understands (except you).

Still, Papadopoulos has challenged Turkey to take this case to the ICJ, and we all know (except you ) why Turkey didn't take the challenge.

(More to the point this thread started with a question about why TCs didn't 'pursue' the ICJ. My response, which you Piratis have hijacked and distorted, was to explain why TCs couldn't do so. For some unfathomable reason Piratis keeps jumping up and down saying that Kosovo is irrelevant to TRNC. He protesteth too much. As I read it Piratis' basic reaction to the thread question "T/C why have they not pursude the ICJ" is because he, Piratis, doesn't want them to, that they have no substantive grounds to do so. My response is, whether or not TCs have some substantive grounds, they neither have standing or legal personality to do so and therefore cannot submit to the ICJ. Boring I know, but no less true for that).

The question of the initial poster in this thread was: "Why has Turkey and the t/c not have taken the ROC all these years to the court."

Turkey was challenged by Papadopoulos to take the case to the ICJ and Turkey didn't take the challenge.

We all know that TCs do not have the standing or legal personality to do such thing, but Turkey can, and RoC has publicly challenged Turkey to do so.

[CopperLine]

Piratis,
I think it would be a good idea not to build straw figures, just so that you can knock them down. I think that it would be a good idea not to put words into my mouth, just so that you can say how it's wrong. I think it would be a good idea and not as waste of everyone's time, if instead of denouncing me for things that I have not said and not claimed, that you comment on things that I have actually written. Thus for example, you wrote that "You claim that the self-determination or independence of a territory is irrelevant to the majority of that territory." No I didn't. I didn't write anything remotely like that. Then you ask a question - "So do you claim that if Kosovo only had 18% Albanians and 82% Serbians, and only the Albanians supported a separate Kosovo state, that such demand would have any legitimacy" - then assume you know the answer, then place that answer in my mouth, and then continue to criticise me for things that I didn't say, to questions that I didn't answer, with words and assumptions that you invented.

This is a trivial, cheap and pointless way of going about things.

Let's agree that I will defend or justify (or amend or withdraw) things that I have actually said. In turn let's agree that you will address those things that I've actually claimed and not those things that you've imagined or invented.

On one issue you write :

"The UN has already declared the "trnc" as "legally invalid" with a resolution."

Yes, I know, with several resolutions to boot. But the UN Security Council (not the UN) is not a judicial body (at best some claim that it is quasi-judicial but that is only in reference to the legal form of SC resolutions) The highest judicial organ of the UN is the ICJ and it is perfectly possible for the ICJ to come to a different legal judgment or opinion from the SC.

On another particular issue, you repeat

Still, Papadopoulos has challenged Turkey to take this case to the ICJ, and we all know (except you ) why Turkey didn't take the challenge.

The reason that this is irrelevant is that
(a) the ICJ does not work on "challenges";
(b) it is pure supposition to say that "we all know" why Turkey didn't take the challenge - we don't know, you don't know, we can guess, you can guess, but no more than that;
(c) one informed response is that Turkey is not/does not regard itself as needing to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ. After all why would one state which has recognised another state feel any need to get endorsement or confirmation from an international organisation ? When the US switched recognition in 1971 (?) from ROC to PRC did it feel the need to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ ? Similarly did either ROC or PRC turn to the ICJ ? No. (Piratis, please don't respond by saying that ROC/USA is not the same as TRNC/Turkey. I know.) Furthermore we know that it is Turkey's position - however fanciful - that TRNC is a separate state in which case Turkey can hardly turn to the ICJ and ask 'Is TRNC a separate state ?' In other words Turkey cannot and will not act on behalf of another state to request an advisory ICJ opinion.

Finally for the moment, if the matter is so clear cut for RoC as it appears to be so clear cut for RoT - neither has anything to fear from an ICJ opinion (both confident that right is on their side), then why have neither the Republic of Cyprus nor Republic of Turkey tested a case re-TRNC before the ICJ nor even asked for an advisory opinion ?

[Piratis]

Piratis,
I think it would be a good idea not to build straw figures, just so that you can knock them down. I think that it would be a good idea not to put words into my mouth, just so that you can say how it's wrong. I think it would be a good idea and not as waste of everyone's time, if instead of denouncing me for things that I have not said and not claimed, that you comment on things that I have actually written. Thus for example, you wrote that "You claim that the self-determination or independence of a territory is irrelevant to the majority of that territory." No I didn't. I didn't write anything remotely like that. Then you ask a question - "So do you claim that if Kosovo only had 18% Albanians and 82% Serbians, and only the Albanians supported a separate Kosovo state, that such demand would have any legitimacy" - then assume you know the answer, then place that answer in my mouth, and then continue to criticise me for things that I didn't say, to questions that I didn't answer, with words and assumptions that you invented.

This is a trivial, cheap and pointless way of going about things.

Let's agree that I will defend or justify (or amend or withdraw) things that I have actually said. In turn let's agree that you will address those things that I've actually claimed and not those things that you've imagined or invented.

Everyone can go to your previous post and read what you wrote. You asked "Are you really meaning what you say about self-determination and majorities ?" Yes I really mean it, and I am glad that you now realized that I am right. (although instead of admitting that you were wrong you instead try to take back what you said. Thats OK. )

On one issue you write :

"The UN has already declared the "trnc" as "legally invalid" with a resolution."

Yes, I know, with several resolutions to boot. But the UN Security Council (not the UN) is not a judicial body (at best some claim that it is quasi-judicial but that is only in reference to the legal form of SC resolutions) The highest judicial organ of the UN is the ICJ and it is perfectly possible for the ICJ to come to a different legal judgment or opinion from the SC.

On another particular issue, you repeat

Still, Papadopoulos has challenged Turkey to take this case to the ICJ, and we all know (except you ) why Turkey didn't take the challenge.

The reason that this is irrelevant is that
(a) the ICJ does not work on "challenges";
(b) it is pure supposition to say that "we all know" why Turkey didn't take the challenge - we don't know, you don't know, we can guess, you can guess, but no more than that;
(c) one informed response is that Turkey is not/does not regard itself as needing to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ. After all why would one state which has recognised another state feel any need to get endorsement or confirmation from an international organisation ? When the US switched recognition in 1971 (?) from ROC to PRC did it feel the need to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ ? Similarly did either ROC or PRC turn to the ICJ ? No. (Piratis, please don't respond by saying that ROC/USA is not the same as TRNC/Turkey. I know.) Furthermore we know that it is Turkey's position - however fanciful - that TRNC is a separate state in which case Turkey can hardly turn to the ICJ and ask 'Is TRNC a separate state ?' In other words Turkey cannot and will not act on behalf of another state to request an advisory ICJ opinion.

Finally for the moment, if the matter is so clear cut for RoC as it appears to be so clear cut for RoT - neither has anything to fear from an ICJ opinion (both confident that right is on their side), then why have neither the Republic of Cyprus nor Republic of Turkey tested a case re-TRNC before the ICJ nor even asked for an advisory opinion ?

If you dispute the UN resolution which declares the attempt to create a "trnc" as legally invalid then it is you who need to prove that the UN is wrong and you are the right ones.

Otherwise the attempt to create some "trnc" on the land you stole from us remains invalid, and everything else you say is just cheap talk.

I believe the initial poster with his tread wanted to show that the Turks are just cheap talk and they can not prove their baseless claims for Cyprus. After this discussion we had everyone can see that this is in fact the case.

[Get Real!]

But the UN Security Council (not the UN) is not a judicial body (at best some claim that it is quasi-judicial but that is only in reference to the legal form of SC resolutions) The highest judicial organ of the UN is the ICJ and it is perfectly possible for the ICJ to come to a different legal judgment or opinion from the SC.

“The Security Council has primary responsibility, under the Charter, for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_background.html


Whereas the ICJ…

“The Court has a twofold role: to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States (Contentious cases) and to give advisory opinions (Advisory proceedings) on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.”

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3


Therefore, the decision is on the Security Council to seek the ICJ’s legal advice if it deems necessary, but it does NOT appear that the ICJ can ever challenge the Security Council's decisions! In other words, the ICJ is a LEGAL TOOL the Security Council can use, but that's where the buck stops!

And I’ll wager that had Cyprus convinced Turkey to attend the ICJ to sort out the Cyprus Problem, the ICJ would make good reference to the Security Council's resolutions pertaining to Cyprus!

[Sotos]

“The Court has a twofold role: to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States (Contentious cases) and to give advisory opinions (Advisory proceedings) on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.”

So the ICJ is not just for giving advice but can also settle disputes. Don't expect the Turks to accept to go to the ICJ for Cyprus. They lose to ECHR all the time, they lost to ECJ and they know they will lose in the ICJ as well. Only CooperLine doesn't know this.

[bill cobbett]

But the UN Security Council (not the UN) is not a judicial body (at best some claim that it is quasi-judicial but that is only in reference to the legal form of SC resolutions) The highest judicial organ of the UN is the ICJ and it is perfectly possible for the ICJ to come to a different legal judgment or opinion from the SC.

“The Security Council has primary responsibility, under the Charter, for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_background.html


Whereas the ICJ…

“The Court has a twofold role: to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States (Contentious cases) and to give advisory opinions (Advisory proceedings) on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.”

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3


Therefore, the decision is on the Security Council to seek the ICJ’s legal advice if it deems necessary, but it does NOT appear that the ICJ can ever challenge the Security Council's decisions! In other words, the ICJ is a LEGAL TOOL the Security Council can use, but that's where the buck stops!

And I’ll wager that had Cyprus convinced Turkey to attend the ICJ to sort out the Cyprus Problem, the ICJ would make good reference to the Security Council's resolutions pertaining to Cyprus!

When first read our GR's post, got the impression that both parties to a contentious issue had to apply to ICJ. so am thinking no way would Turkey agree to this.... but reading the material in the link, one party would seem to be sufficient. Turkey's agreement ain't needed.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3

Here's what it says ....(in full) ....

" Cases
The Court has a twofold role: to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States (Contentious cases ) and to give advisory opinions (Advisory proceedings) on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.
In Contentious proceedings, when a dispute is brought before the Court by a unilateral application filed by one State against another State , the names of parties in the official title of the case are separated by the abbreviation v. for the Latin versus (e.g., Cameroonv. Nigeria). When a dispute is submitted to the Court on the basis of a special agreement between two States, the names of the parties are separated by an oblique stroke (e.g., Indonesia/Malaysia).
The first case entered in the General List of the Court (Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania)) was submitted on 22 May 1947.
From 22 May 1947 to 4 December 2009, 144 cases were entered in the General List.

Which, if I've got it right, would think The Republic ought to start preparing a little test case. The matter of Occupied Varosi!

As Sotos says we've had so many victories at the ECHR, perhaps time to extend in to other Courts.

[Piratis]

bill, that is not the case because Turkey does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory. (Cyprus does)

http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/ind ... &p2=1&p3=3

In order for one country to bring another country to the ICJ without a prior agreement between the two countries, both countries must accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory.

More details on where the court has jurisdiction can be found here:

http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/ind ... &p2=1&p3=2

If we could take Turkey to the ICJ maybe we would. However it is already established that the Turkish occupation and the "trnc" are illegal, so there is no need for us to prove again what is already proven and obvious to all (except to the Turks).

Turkey ignores the UN Resolutions and in the same way she would ignore the ICJ rulings. Don't expect that those fascists will ever respect any international law if it doesn't suit them and if they are not forced to obey them. It would be like expecting Hitler to stop invading and occupying other countries by winning a court case against him. Those fascists have no regards to international law and this is something already established.

[vaughanwilliams]

Hear, hear.

That's a typical c44 junk response we don't use here.

You're expected to add/expand/analyze/criticize, etc, or say nothing.

CopperLine has a clear unemotional grip on the presentation of his case. I could not possibly presume to add to what he has to say, but can only agree with its sentiments.

Malatya is the name the Turks gave to the exclusively Greek Cypriot village called Παλαιόσοφος (Paleosofos). Do you live in an illegally acquired Greek Cypriot property vaughanwilliams?

I live in a perfectly legally acquired house, according to the laws of the de facto government of the TRNC. If you think they shouldn't have allowed me to buy it, maybe you should take it up with them at your earliest opportunity.